Hi guys,
at various points, different implementations have made different messes of
particular terms, or we have decided we want new ones.
I think we should try to be conservative about changing the namespace we
use, except that by the time we go to Proposed Recommendation it would be
nice to have one that hadn't been used for a bunch of dodgy content.
This implies at least one further change of namespace. In addition, we may
decide in between times to change something. It makes sense to me,
thinking about implementors, to change a term when we decide to change its
meaning, which either means we can use some other string in the same
namespace, or provide a new namespace for the new version.
One benefit of doing things this way is that it allows us or someone else
to come along afterwards and write OWL statements that actually allow
tools to automatically convert old EARL of some kind or other to whatever
the latest spec is, rather than having to rely on changing the namespace
and simply throwing away all old content, which would IMHO be a mistake.
I guess this isn't yet an issue, since we haven't changed the meaning of
any existing terms. So it should sit on the agenda queue while we figure
out more important stuff, for the moment.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile chaals@opera.com
hablo español - je parle français - jeg lærer norsk
Here's one we prepared earlier: http://www.opera.com/download